From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Belships v. Republic, France

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Aug 30, 1950
184 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1950)

Opinion

No. 21752.

Argued August 29, 1950.

Decided August 30, 1950.

Charles S. Haight, New York City (Haight, Deming, Gardner, Poor Havens, and Pyne, Lynch Smith, Anthony V. Lynch, Jr., and Joseph A. Schimski, all of New York City, on the brief), for petitioner.

Fowler Hamilton, New York City (Cleary, Gottlieb, Friendly Cox, Jerome E. Hyman, and Harold P. Thomson, Jr., all of New York City, and George Ball, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent-libellant.

Before SWAN, CLARK, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.


While we have authority to issue one of the extraordinary writs here prayed for in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, we have been admonished that this should be done only when necessary in extraordinary cases, and not as a means of interlocutory appeal. Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041; Bank Line v. United States, 2 Cir., 163 F.2d 133. We fail to see how the taking of depositions of witnesses who have their own remedy if they are improperly subpoenaed and whose testimony has not yet been and may never be offered in evidence at the trial satisfies these standards. Accordingly we dismiss the petition.

Petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Belships v. Republic, France

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Aug 30, 1950
184 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1950)
Case details for

Belships v. Republic, France

Case Details

Full title:BELSHIPS CO., LTD, SKIBS A/S, v. THE REPUBLIC OF FRANCE

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Aug 30, 1950

Citations

184 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1950)

Citing Cases

P. Beiersdorf Co. v. McGohey

That is appropriate, for there will then be practically, as well as legally, no control over the trial…

Ludena v. the Santa Luisa et al.

Judge Rifkind, who decided the latter case, was on the committee which drafted the rule. Belships Co., Ltd.,…